Vote Against Banner Shows Divide on Speech in Schools

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: June 26, 2007

The Alaska high school student who unfurled a 14-foot banner with the odd message ''Bong Hits 4 Jesus'' insisted that it was a banner about nothing, a prank designed to get him and his friends on television as the Olympic torch parade went through Juneau en route to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

The school's principal insisted, to the contrary, that the banner advocated, or at least celebrated, illegal drug use, and that the student, Joseph Frederick, should be punished for displaying it. She suspended him for 10 days.

On Monday, by a narrow margin, the Supreme Court backed the principal in a decision that showed the court deeply split over what weight to give to free speech in public schools.

Six justices voted to overturn a federal appeals court's ruling that left the principal, Deborah Morse, liable for damages for violating Mr. Frederick's First Amendment rights.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. spoke, at least nominally, for five of the six. He said for the court that Ms. Morse's reaction to the banner, which was displayed off school property but at a school-sponsored event, was a reasonable one that did not violate the Constitution.

While the banner might have been nothing but ''gibberish,'' the chief justice said, it was reasonable for the principal, who ''had to decide to act -- or not act -- on the spot,'' to decide both that it promoted illegal drug use and that ''failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use.''

He added, ''The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.''

Four other justices, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., signed the chief justice's opinion, although Justice Thomas took a much different approach. He said that Mr. Frederick had no First Amendment rights to violate.

''In light of the history of American public education,'' Justice Thomas said, ''it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment 'freedom of speech' encompasses a student's right to speak in public schools.'' The court's precedents had become incoherent, he said, adding, ''I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in school except when they don't.''

The sixth justice, Stephen G. Breyer, did not sign the chief justice's opinion, but wrote separately to say that the First Amendment issue was sufficiently cloudy that the court should have avoided deciding it. Instead, he said, the court should have ruled in the principal's favor on the alternative ground that she was entitled to immunity from the student's lawsuit.

Under the court's doctrine of ''qualified immunity,'' government officials may not be sued for damages unless they have violated ''clearly established'' rights ''of which a reasonable person would have known.''

There were additional shades of opinion within the chief justice's majority. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kennedy, wrote separately to emphasize what they said was the narrowness of the court's holding. They said the decision should be understood as limited to speech advocating drug use, and noted that the court had not endorsed the much broader argument, put forward by the Bush administration, that school officials could censor speech that interfered with a school's ''educational mission.''

The breadth of that argument had alarmed religious conservatives, on the ground that school officials would get a license to enforce political correctness. Justice Alito, who had expressed a similar concern as an appeals court judge, said that the ''educational mission'' argument ''strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment'' by allowing school officials to ''suppress speech on political and social issues based on disagreement with the viewpoint expressed.''

Writing for the four dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens said that even limited to drugs, the majority opinion distorted the First Amendment by ''inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs'' in a way that someone might perceive as containing a ''latent pro-drug message.''

Justice Stevens said that ''carving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment.''

Noting that alcohol also posed a danger to teenagers, Justice Stevens wondered whether ''the court would support punishing Frederick for flying a 'Wine Sips 4 Jesus' banner,'' which he said might be seen as pro-religion as well as pro-alcohol.

The dissenters, who also included Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer, agreed with the majority that the principal should not be held personally liable for monetary damages. The case was Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278.

Photo: Douglas Mertz, a lawyer for Joseph Frederick, with the banner that led to a 10-day suspension and a trip to the Supreme Court. (Photograph by Brian Wallace/The Empire, via Associated Press)